Articles

                                                                                                                          Author: Soroor Ashtarian

Background

Speaking is, nowadays, one of the fundamental aspects of English language teaching due to the impact of communicative language teaching which has communication at the centre of its attention. This in turn directs the arrow of responsibility towards teachers and their role in classroom management and planning speaking tasks in such a way to engage all the learners in those activities (Hughes, 2002).

 I have taught English as a foreign language in state Iranian secondary schools for over 10 years, however, I have never taught speaking in my classes because it is not included in the curriculum and therefore no time is allocated to teaching it in predetermined teaching timetables prepared by ministry of education. Nonetheless, this does not exclude speaking from my English classes as teaching other skills requires speaking English on the part of teacher and the students. The problem that I encounter is that most of students prefer to keep quiet and avoid participating in class discussions or volunteering to answer questions in English.

Further to the point made above, as a language learner I have experienced being reluctant to speak in my English classes myself. During my school years and also at university, while doing my BA in TEFL, I was one of those students who were always reluctant to participate in the discussions or volunteer to answer the questions asked by teacher in spite of knowing the answer. The reason for this in my case was two -fold one having a low self-esteem and not believing in my abilities either in my L1 or L2 and the other one low communicative ability despite having a high score on University Entrance Examination that was about 90 per cent on reading, grammar and vocabulary.

The above-mentioned factors make me empathize my students who are in the same situation and give me the reason to find out more about likely sources of the students’ reticence to speak in the classroom and possible solutions to this problem. To do so, first, I am going to discuss the possible reasons for students’ reticence based on the related literature and then I will draw upon the literature and propose some possible solutions and their relevance to my students and context and also their practicality.

   Problem

Having touched upon the existing problem of students’ reticence to speak in my English classes, now I am going to start off this section by defining willingness to communicate in L2 (WTC) and its significance, the pyramid model and some of the reasons identified in different studies (Tsui 1996; Tudor, 1996 cited in Zhang and Head, 2009) for students’ reluctance to participate in the language classrooms emphasising those that apply to my classes. Then, I will continue by suggesting possible solutions and the relevance and practicality of each in my context.

Willingness to communicate

Willingness to communicate (WTC) is the first concept to be discussed here. The reason for this is that if students are not willing to communicate, they would not use the L2 even if they have the opportunity to do so. In fact, reticent students have less practice in the L2 use, thus have less progress in speaking the target language. As MacIntyre et al (1998) state communicative behaviour entails various activities including speaking in the target language, reading L2 materials or watching L2 movies, etc, however they argue that

Often, language teachers do not have the capacity to create this array of opportunities for L2 communication. We would argue that the ultimate goal of the learning process should be to engender in language students the willingness to seek out communication opportunities and the willingness actually to communicate in them. That is, a proper objective for L2 education is to create WTC. A program that fails to produce students who are willing to use the language is simply a failed program (p. 547).

 WTC  in L1 has been defined as “the probability of engaging in communication when free to choose to do so” ( McCrosky and Baer, 1985 in MacIntyre et al, 1998, p. 546).WTC refers to the idea that language learners who are willing to communicate in the second language actually look for chances to communicate; and furthermore, these learners actually do communicate in the L2 (Wikipedia, online). The goal of education, according to new methods of teaching, is to engender WTC in learners. However, some students are not willing to speak in the classroom despite their linguistic competence. Therefore one can infer that there is a mediating layer between L2 communicative competence and performance or language use and that is WCT (MacIntyre et al 1998; Dörnyei, 2005). MacIntyre et al conceptualize WTC in L2 as “readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons using a L2” (p. 547) and also consider it as a construct including both “state and trait characteristics”(MacIntyre, 2002 in Dörnyei, 2005 ). According to MacIntyre et al (1998 ) “by engendering a willingness to communicate, language instruction may achieve its social and political goal of bringing cultures into contact and nations together” (p. 558). McCrosky and Baer consider WTC as a concept related to characteristics such as communicative competence, self-esteem, introversion /extraversion. The variables that may affect WTC are acquaintance of the interlocutors, number of them, the topic and the language of communication. Nevertheless, studies in L2 have demonstrated the negative relationship between L1 and L2 WTC (Charos, 1994 in MacIntyre et al, 1998) and this is likely to be the result of the nature of the variables that affect L1/L2 WTC such as communicative competence which is relatively the same in L1 for all while ranges from 0-100 per cent in L2. Social and political factors that influence WTC in L2 are not present in L1 WTC either.

Figure 1. WTC construct proposed by MacIntyre et al (1998)

In the above pyramid model, WTC is considered as the last step in preparing students to communicate because being willing to communicate means probability of “authentic interaction with another individual, given the opportunity” (p, 558). The first three layers have “enduring influences” on the process of communication while the situated factors in the next three layers towards the top of the pyramid are transient and may vary depending on different situations in which one communicates (p. 546).

Having mentioned the importance of WTC, I need to make an attempt to raise my students’ willingness to communicate in L2 as WTC is the direct lead to L2 use that is the ultimate goal of language learning in many contexts. To do so, I need to identify the possible reasons for my students’ reticence to speak and then come up with the feasible solutions to address this issue based on the related literature.

Based on my teaching experience and the feedback that I get from my students, in addition to all elements contributing to students’ willingness/unwillingness to communicate in the pyramid model, there are other immediate factors which I think have a significant role in my students’ reticence to speak in the classroom. Due to the limited scope of this paper, I will focus on the most tangible ones in my context, those that can be tackled in short term and during limited classroom hours.

Fear of making mistakes

Students’ tendency to remain silent in the classroom can be because of being afraid of making mistakes and loosing face in front of others or a result of one’s personality and being shy or introverted. Thus the teacher should shoulder the responsibility of creating an atmosphere in which students feel relaxed and can take risks and engage in conversation /discussions (Harmer, 2007; Hedge, 2000). Fear of making mistakes and loosing face in front of other students and especially the teacher is what my students refer to as their main reason for keeping quiet in the classroom

Inappropriate task/question

Sometimes it is too difficult to get students to participate and speak in the classroom because of inappropriate topic or tasks. Students may engage in speaking in two ways. First of which is referred to as “display questions” by Lynch (1996) which are questions asked by teacher that require predetermined answers (p. 108) and actually this is the type of question I think I have mostly used in my clasess, reflecting on my teaching experience. These types of questions involve little or no negotiation of meaning since no real interaction is taking place while using them. Real questions, on the other hand, are more beneficial since they lead students to giving longer responses, being more active and initiating the conversation and saying what they want to say rather than providing a predetermined answer like giving a test.

Teacher’s control/authority

A study conducted by Xie (2009) which investigated teacher-student interaction at a Chinese university, indicated that one of the reasons for students’ inactiveness and reticence to speak is inability of teacher to create an interactional environment as a result of his/her “thematic control” over classroom (p. 68). By thematic control, Xie means choosing the topic to be discussed in the classroom without taking into account students’ interest. My students’ interest is definitely what I should have in mind in choosing supplementary materials.

Identity

Learning an L2 is different from other school subjects in that L2 use which is the ultimate goal of language learning in many contexts  is associated closely to one’s identity and in language classroom by speaking one is actually conveying this identity to others (Arnold 2000).  Thus compared to other skills, anxiety level would be relatively higher in speaking classes (MacIntyre and Gardner 1991 cited in Arnold, 2000).

Possible Solutions

Pair/group work

My experience as a language teacher/learner has shown me that working in pairs, especially; talking to the person you have a desire to talk to is a contributing factor in increasing students’ WTC. Therefore, starting from pair work and working on simple tasks is what I will definitely consider as one way of helping my students to get round their fear of speaking in front of others as this will consequently boost their confidence to participate in group/whole class activities/discussions (Hedge, 2000). Next step in reducing this fear is moving from pair work after a few weeks/months depending on students’ readiness and putting students in small groups.

More importantly, as my students sometimes point out, when working individually and on their own they often think they have nothing to talk/write about or if they have any idea it is nonsense. To overcome this problem, I think introducing buzz groups where students brainstorm each other would be useful (Harmer, 2007) as taking to other students will sparkle new ideas in their head or reassures them that their ideas are not silly or useless. Harmer suggests putting students into small groups and assigning a number from 1-4 or 5 to each member without teacher knowing who is assigned which number. After doing the task in each group, the teacher calls a number from each group to report back to the whole class. By doing so, he believes all group members have to participate in doing the task and be ready for reporting back. However, as Hedge states, some students from some educational cultures are not used to group work though this does not mean we should totally get rid of group work and ignore its benefits. Consequently, group work provides the opportunity for negotiating of meaning” between learners” as it gives each learner an opportunity to talk in the group. To raise students’ awareness of negotiating meaning and thus group work, teachers should convince students of the cognitive/affective benefits of it and try to create a positive and cooperative atmosphere (Lynch, 1996).

Kagan (1992 in Arnold, 2000) proposes using a cooperative learning technique called Think-pair-share in which a topic is introduced to individuals by teacher and they are given enough time to think about it and answer the related questions. Then students pair up and discuss their answers before reporting back to the whole class. This strategy not only provides students sufficient time to think through the task but also help them overcome their fear of speaking in front of the class to some extent

Techniques for having equal turns

An issue raised while doing group work is the unequal turns taken by students to talk. To address this issue, I am planning to use a technique introduced by Arnold (2000) called Talking Chips. Each member of the group is given a chip or slips of paper and is required to put her/his chip in the middle of the table when s/he wants to talk. The person who has talked has to wait for others to talk their turn and if necessary have another go after everybody has their turn. Dialogue line is another activity which gives a chance to all students to have a go at asking/answering questions, especially at the beginning levels. In this activity students stand in lines facing each other with one line asking questions and the other line responding using the Cue Cards including a picture or a word to help them answer. The question line stands stationary while the others in the second line move to face another student and answer a new question. The students can swap roles in asking and answering questions (Online). In the next section I will address inappropriate tasks and the most likely solution from my readings that would be practical in my context.

Appropriate Tasks

Basically, the activities used in the classroom should be designed in such a way that all the students/groups are required to participate in order to accomplish it. An example of such an activity is jig-saw speaking activity in which the teacher selects a text cuts it into single sentences and distributes them among group members who are required to work out what the correct order of each text is. Each member memorizes his/her sentence before returning the pieces to the teacher then they share their sentences without writing them down. After coming up with the right order they dictate their sentence to everyone to jot down. Using clues such as linking words/pronouns etc can be helpful in arriving at the right order (Lynch, 1996).

Involving students in the process of designing the course and the activities to be implemented in the classroom can lead to overcoming their reticence (Zhang and Head, 2009). I can involve my students by identifying their specific language needs/goals, albeit related to the course book that is chosen by the ministry of education. An example will be helpful in  clarifying this point. Each lesson of the upper secondary course   this I believe “gives them a sense of ownership and control of their learning” (Graves, 2005 in Zhang and Head , 2009). This in turn will lead to motivation and self-esteem and thus promoting oral proficiency and participation.

Less control on the part of teacher

Based on Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of learning (1978 in Xie, 2009), learning in general takes place through students’ interacting with other people and their support. Thus in classroom setting, teacher and other students are contributing to this interaction and provide the necessary support. Therefore, considering the importance of classroom interaction and scaffolding , I should try to  impose less control on  my students as I believe is the case in most English classes in my context.  These are points that I should keep in mind a) I should be more flexible in accepting responses that are not in the text book or those that I have not anticipated b) I should not judge my students’ responses as wrong/bad responses and ruin their confidence c) I should not  shut down the continuation of interaction on the part of students if their answer is irrelevant d) I should not elaborate on  my students’ contributions whenever possible and prevent them from explaining their ideas in more detail.

Overall, to provide more support for my students, I must accept any contribution from students rather than looking for those that match my expectations. Moreover, I can engage students in interaction by opening up the follow-up of IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow up). This can be done by incorporating students’ responses into more question/interaction. Consequently there would be more students’ talk, it scaffolds and motivates some students who have something to say but due to their low language proficiency prefer to keep quiet. It links the old/new information as well and finally I can use my students’ experience as a source of knowledge for classroom interaction (Nystrand et al, 2003 in Xie, 2009). To account for my students’ interests and values, choosing tasks that allow them express themselves would be useful. This issue will be discussed in the following section.

Self- expression

Another crucial point that I should bear in mind is selecting tasks/activities that are  not only thematically appropriate but also represent the culture, beliefs and values of my students in the Iranian context so that they can engender the feeling of self-representation and making their voice heard. Thus in choosing supplementary materials including texts to be discussed in the classroom in addition to the course book that is provided by the ministry of education, I need to be cautious not to use those that represent other cultures which are in contrast to Iranian/religious values. Using pictures, information gaps and pair/group work are crucial forms of mediation in communicative approaches which have as their target developing speaking but as it is clear from the previous discussion these would not yield successful results if they are detached from students’ socio-cultural life, their beliefs and values (Luk, 2005).

Other measures that I need to incorporate to engender WTC in students as explained by Arnold (2000) are as follows:

·         At the beginning of each course, focus more on students’ attitudes rather than linguistic materials

·         Make students aware of their voice

·         Be a good listener and avoid judging what students say

·         Be patient and let students talk when they feel ready to do so

·         Create a supportive atmosphere through cooperative learning

·         Make speaking meaningful by making it relevant to students’ experiences, concerns and interests

·         Be tolerant of students imperfect production

·         Be optimistic and expect students to succeed as teacher’s positive thinking has a great influence on learners’ success

Other points (from Wikipedia, online) that need to be added to this list are:

·         Raise students’ interest in L2 culture by talking about different cultural aspects of L1/L2 and comparing them

·         Use authentic materials in the classroom as much as possible

·         Use variety of tasks

·         Praise students for their participation verbally or by building on the points they make as a start for another discussion

·         Last but not least, be motivated yourself and try to show your enthusiasm in teaching

Conclusion

To sum up, in this paper, I discussed the problem of my EFL students’ reticence to speak in English classes. To address this issue, I made an attempt to find out about different reasons behind their reticence based on my teaching/learning experience and also support from the related literature. Derived from the literatures some possible solutions were identified and their relevance to my context were also discussed.

Reference

Arnold, J. 2000. Speak Easy: How to ease students into oral production. HLT Magazine.Yr5 issue 2. http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar03/martmar035.rtf

Dörnyei,  Z. 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, publishers

Harmer, J. 2007. The practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman

Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford/ NewYork: Oxford University Press

Hughes, R. 2002. Teaching and researching speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education

Luk, J. 2005. Voicing the Self through the ‘Other’ Language: Exploring Communicative Language Teaching for Global Communication. In Canagarajah, A. Suresh. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice p.247-268, Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Assoc
Lynch, T. 1996. Communication in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press

MacIntyre, P.D,.Clement, R,. Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. 1998. Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82/iv, 545-562

Tsui, A.B.M. 1996. Reticence and second language learning anxiety. In K. Bailey & D.Nunan (Eds). Voices from the language. 145-167. NewYork: Cambridge University Press

Xie, X. 2009. Why are students quiet? Looking at Chinese context and beyond. ELT Journal, 64/1, 10-20

Zhang, X.,Head, K. 2009. Dealing with learner reticence in the speaking class. ELT Journal, 64/1, 1-9

http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/willingness_to_communicate (retrieved on 30 Dec 2009)

Computer Concept Mapping Tool and Reading Comprehension

 

                                                                                                                   Author: Soroor Ashtarian

1 Introduction

This assignment focuses on the use of computer concept maps as a tool for instruction and learning. It aims at introducing concept map as a reading comprehension strategy facilitating learners’ retention of the information in their reading text and consolidating their learning. Paper-based and computer-based concept mapping are compared in a case study of a learner employing the two modes to four texts of almost the same length and difficulty level to find out which mode results in higher level of retention and consolidation of the information encountered.

I will start by describing my target learners and what they are going to learn. Then I will move on to the pedagogic and the design rationale behind this choice of tool. Drawing upon the results of a one month case study, I will then elaborate on the evaluation stage and the outcomes will be presented afterwards. The assignment will conclude by a summary of the lessons I have learned from conducting this one month case study and what I might do differently in my real classes in this respect.

2 My learners and their learning aims

My learners are 14-15 year old girls who are taking English as one of the compulsory subjects in the first year of their senior secondary school.  The main focus in their English book is reading comprehension followed by grammar with about 70 % of the final exam grade allocated to reading comprehension questions and the related vocabulary. This trend continues up to university level and reading comprehension of English texts forms the centre of attention in public schools and universities.

Iranian students start learning English since the age of 12 in the first year of junior secondary school where the books include plenty of colourful images accompanied by instructional aids such as picture charts and objects provided by the educational department. The reading passages in this level mainly include texts or information about concrete objects and everyday topics such as schools/ teachers/ favourite things and so on which make it easier for teachers to teach using what they have got at hand.  Group work is also encouraged at this level that is grade 6-9 at junior secondary school as the low number of students lends itself very well to collaborative work. Number of hours allocated to English lesson at junior secondary school which is four hours a week as compared to 3 hours a week for first grade in senior secondary school is another factor making the teaching at this level that is junior secondary school more efficient.

 However, upon entering the senior level, as the results of the local or national exams and the experiences of teachers including me indicate students’ performance changes dramatically and the failure rate is more than other levels. Upon entering this school year, students seem to lose their motivation and the enthusiasm that they once had at lower levels due to less fun aspect of the books, abstract topics and words, lack of teaching aids provided by the education department or school, difficulty level of the texts compared to the previous years, the extent of teaching in one session because the inadequate number of hours allocated to this subject as compared to the content that needs to be covered, lack of collaborative work due to  large number of students, teacher- centred methods of teaching and overlooking role of the learners in the process of learning and text-based teaching with little attention to  students’ various learning styles.

As mentioned in the description of my learners and their problem, reading comprehension and vocabulary learning are two of their major problems which are also interrelated. However, in this assignment I am going to focus on reading comprehension and finding a way to help my students improve it thus leaving dealing with vocabulary as a separate subject in my future work. To do so, I first need to define reading and different approaches to it which is what will follow as the first part of the pedagogic rationale.

 3 Learning Rationales

3.1 What is Reading

Reading is defined by Kern (2000) as a “dynamic rhetorical process for generating of meaning from texts that draws on all of one’s semiotic resources“(p, 116). In his definition, Kern considers reading as a social and individual process which relies on reader/writer relationships, shared knowledge, assumptions and conventions as well as individual acts such as creativity, emotions and imaginations. Snow (2002) defines reading comprehension as the active process of ‘‘simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language” (p. 11).

3.2 Approaches to Reading

Three different approaches to reading have been elaborated on in the literature  namely bottom-up, top- down and interactive model of reading comprehension which I will discuss respectively in this section drawing upon the related literature.

According to Grabe and Stoller (2002), in bottom-up approaches to reading, the readers embark on the reading by decoding individual words or sentences of the text or in extreme cases going through the text letter by letter. They do so without any kind of inference from their background knowledge relying mostly on what they encounter in the reading passage in front of them. In top- down approaches to reading  on the other hand, readers rely mostly on their background knowledge  and expectations based on the topic, the pictures, graphs, tables,.... and then go on to confirm or reject those expectations. Drawing on inferences and starting from more general information to details are of features of this model of reading. Eventually, interactive approaches to reading which are mostly appreciated by different scholars and language teachers (Alderson, 2008) take into account considerations from both previous models meaning they allow the readers employ both decoding the text when needed and inferencing using the present images and the relevant background knowledge.

My learners are used to bottom-up approaches of reading as they have been taught in this way since starting learning English in junior secondary schools which is not as efficient as it should be in senior secondary school due to difficulty level of the texts and length of them leaving most of the students with low performance on their reading comprehension exams. Therefore, I guess a possible solution to their problem is a top-down approach or an interactive approach to reading where they can rely on their background knowledge and inferring from the context thus making the most of what they have in front of them or what they know about it. As mentioned before the only source of my students’ problem is not the approach to reading, my reliance on text as the only teaching aid and in rare cases accompanied with some pictures makes it difficult to account for various learning styles which will be discussed in the following section.

3.3 Learning styles

3.3.1 Visual, Audio and Kinaesthetic learning styles (VAK)

Different people tend to favour different learning styles namely visual, audio and kinaesthetic learning styles. Visual learners in general like to see teacher’s body language and gestures to better understand the lesson. They picture things in their heads, favour diagrams, illustration, overhead transparencies, flipcharts, handouts,...they usually take detailed notes to better absorb the information. They also favour using highlighters, multi-media, video, film strips.

Auditory learners learn better through verbal lessons, discussing things and listening. They interpret based on the tone of the voice, pitch, speed. Written information has little use for them until they hear it. They favour reading aloud and using tape recorder. They also like shared reading, writing, teacher modelling and story- telling for demonstrating their ideas.

Kinaesthetic learn through moving, touching and doing things. They prefer hands-on approaches to learning and doing things and exploring the physical world around them. They find it difficult to sit for a long time as they prefer doing things. So building different activities would be beneficial for such students. The overall message therefore is to cater for all learning styles. Therefore it is crucial that all three styles be facilitated as much as possible.

Willing in Harmer (2001) describe learners as convergers, conformists, concreate learners and communicative learners thus providing us with description of these learners with various learning styles which is part of appendix B as compared to Kolb’s learning style model (Sims & Sims, 2006).

In this paper, I base my explanations on VAK learning styles which I think easier to understand and more feasible.

In my teaching, I must admit, I have mostly relied on approaches that mostly benefit the auditory learners thus overlooking other learning styles such as visuals and kinaesthetic Therefore, this is one of the factors that I am going to take into consideration in this assignment to target my students’ reading problem and finding a possible solution which should be based on a sound theory of learning as is explained in the next part.

3.4 Learning Theories

My early teaching experience was mainly based on grammar translation method thus emphasizing the need for translation of the reading text and memorization of long lists of vocabulary which was atheoretical meaning had no learning theory as its basis. After a couple of years and observing the inefficiency of this method I turned to a teaching method of more audio lingual nature emphasizing the correct pronunciation of the words and reading aloud to get the pronunciation right and then teaching the reading through some pictures that I had prepared myself and telling the story of the text accordingly showing the pictures one by one while students were listening and every now and then shouting a word or sentence in response to my questions and being corrected if they got it wrong. This behaviouristic approach to teaching also proved to be fruitless as my learners were denied of the active role they could have in their learning. They also were pretty much dependent on the teacher and her corrections leaving them no chance for autonomous learning or even benefiting from collaborative learning.

The described situation in my classroom and many of other teachers is/was in fact in contrast  to social constructivism  theories of learning in which the student acts as the creator of her/his own meaning. It is worth mentioning that perspectives on constructivism differ based on the amount of emphasis on the environmental and social factors and their impact on learners’ learning.

Conversation and collaboration are also key words in the constructivist approach to learning. “Social constructivism is based on specific assumptions about reality, knowledge, and learning. To understand and apply models of instruction that are rooted in the perspectives of social constructivists, it is important to know the premises that underlie them” (Online). In a social constructivist’s view reality does not exist it is created in the social and cultural interactions between the learners and also interaction with their environments in constructing the knowledge. Therefore, learning is a social process that does not take place individually or as a passive development of behaviours that are shaped by external forces. Learning happens through the engagement of the learners in the social process of learning (McMahon, 1997; Kukla, 2000; Ernest, 1999; Gredler, 1997; Prat & Floden, 1994).

In Vygotsky’s social constructivism social learning precedes development, learners learn from more knowledgeable other (MKO) that provides scaffolding and there is a difference between the actual development level in independent problem solving as compared to problem solving with a more knowledgeable person which is called ZPD or Zone of Proximal Development. Social environment that is created through the interaction among the learners is a facilitator of learning and development (Schunk, 2008; Kirsch, 2008). In fact, social interaction leads to increased knowledge and as learners gain more independence, scaffolding fades away gradually.

Therefore, collaborative learning and working in groups to discuss the text is a step toward improving the quality of learning as the learners are thought to learn from one another and provide scaffolding along the way to accomplishing the task.

In fact group work tend to provoke greater involvements of the learners , are suitable for interpersonal interaction, it promotes learners autonomy, however there are some disadvantages such as the noise, some learners unwillingness to participate in group discussion and task (Harmer, 2001) which can be cared for by setting some ground rules and assigning roles to each group member.

For all the reasons mentioned this new remedy to my students’ problem draws on the insights from constructivist approaches to learning where learners adopt an active role in the learning which is considered as a social process through working in groups. According to this theory learners construct their own knowledge from what they see/experience around them and important role for affect is considered here where the learners engage in meaningful activities and this engagement can happen in different ways through multiple learning styles (Kaafai et al, 2008) as explained above. “To learn meaningfully, individuals must choose to relate new knowledge to relevant concepts and propositions they already know” (Novak & Gowin, 1984).

3.5 What now?

 

To put it in a nutshell and given all the points made in the previous sections about bottom-up approaches to reading, overlooking the importance of accounting  for all learning styles and  lack of a sound learning theory as the basis of my teaching and collaborative work in my last teaching experience, I came to the conclusion that one way of tackling the reading comprehension problem of my learners would be opening s new door toward a  more collaborative learning experience for my students where they can benefit from both bottom-up and top-down approaches to learning reading as well as taking advantages of the various learning styles used.

It is generally agreed by many researchers that students should be taught multiple strategies in order to enhance their reading comprehension through predicting, summarizing, questioning and using graphic organizers ( Burdumy et al, 2006; Zmach et al, 2007 in Oliver, 2009) and computer- assisted language learning (CALL). For many scholars such as Beatty (2003) the role of CALL is assumed to be fostering language learning through providing opportunities for making some aspects of language learning easier where the software plays the role of teacher’s helper or learning/teaching tool. Collaboration is considered as a key concept in understanding learning/ teaching with CALL.

  Computer concept mapping as an example of computer- assisted language learning, I think, is one solution to the raised issue in this assignment that is improving reading comprehension of my students and consolidating the information learned from the given texts.

Through computer concept mapping, I believe, we can accommodate for various types of learning styles. For example, visual learners can enjoy the pictures/images added to the map in addition to using the selected software in creating the map which by itself gives the opportunity to the kinaesthetic learners to start doing things rather than mere reading or listening. To account for the auditory learners and their preferred style, working in pairs or small groups will provide the opportunity to listen to classmates reading or discussing the text. It can help them employ a series of higher order skills such as synthesizing and evaluation of the content of the text to arrive at the information in a non-linear format.

In the following section I will elaborate on the design rationale of developing computer concept map a as a tool for developing students’ reading comprehension.

4 Design Rationale

Development of concept mapping technique dates back to 1970s by David Novak at the Cornell University. Novak and his colleagues’ work was based on Ausubel’s cognitive assimilation and the constructivist theories of learning in which the importance of assimilating new information into learners’ old structure rather than rote learning is emphasized (Dolehanty, 2008 ).

In 1984, Novak specifically proposed concept mapping as a tool for improving reading comprehension. A rich body of research into learning styles and brain research has demonstrated that representing the information visually makes it easier to understand the presented data. The use of concept map is considered as an effective way of representing the information visually thus facilitating the learning and understanding of the information, it is also more effective for knowledge retention than using traditional text  as it accounts for more learning styles and varieties (McCagg & Dansereau, 1991; Jonassen et al., 1999; O’Reilly et al, 2003).

 In using Cmaps, learners are actually employing their higher-order thinking skills of synthesis and evaluation (online) through employing more top down approaches to reading comprehension. Strongman (2009) also points out the advantages of using concept maps in education and their effectiveness in enhancing learning in students with/without learning disabilities. Successful learning outcomes is believed to be dependent on factors such as grade level, point of implementation, the instructional context and the ease of implementation. To this list I need to add learners’ IT skills and instruction given to students in case of computer- based concept maps/ graphic organizers.

4.1 The advantages of using Concept Map to teach Reading

According to Strangman et al (2009) 9 out of 12 studies investigating the impact of graphic organizers on comprehension indicated improvement in comprehension. The rest, i.e. 3 studies reported no effect the reason for which may be due to deficiencies in experimental design example of which could be lack of instruction on how to use graphic organizers. The same source reports that 23 studies have indicated that the effect of graphic organizers on vocabulary knowledge was more than twice as large as what was reported for comprehension.

Concept maps which are “graphical tools for organizing and representing knowledge” have the following characteristics a) are represented in hierarchical order, with the most general concept at the top moving towards the specific ones b) Include cross-links or relationships between various concepts c) Encompass specific examples of events or objects that are helpful in clarifying the meaning of a particular concept.

Generally speaking, concept maps are helpful in making the learning meaningful as opposed to rote learning, as was the case in my classes, because the concepts (in the boxes or ovals) make the material to be learned clear and provide examples that pertains to the learner’s prior knowledge - provided that this prior knowledge exists and if it does not, it is the responsibility of the teacher to create it to some extent. In fact Cmapping helps as a type of template or scaffold which contributes to the organization of knowledge and structuring it in a new context and also leads to retention if the knowledge for longer period of time (Novak et al, 2008) .The configuration of concept maps facilitates comprehension since sequences of ideas are made clear and transparent. Cmap as a particular form of  graphic organizers is useful since its cross-links which shows the relationships between two concepts is in writing and this relating of concepts aids comprehension (Oliver, 2009). However, the process of creating a concept map can be tedious and time-consuming and frustrating for students.

 In paper-based Cmaps, the revisions and corrections become much more difficult due to the complexity of constructing the map. It is also untidy and disordered (Lin, 2005). On the other hand, research has shown the effectiveness of computers in facilitating concept mapping process (Anderson-Inman et al1993; Anderson-Inman et al, 1999 in Lin, 2005) leading me to compare and contrast these two forms of concept mapping in a case study to find out which one is the most effective in retention of information learned from a reading comprehension text.

4.2 Paper-based Cmaps versus Computer Cmaps

As I pointed out in previous section, the purpose of using Cmaps in this assignment is to improve students’ reading comprehension and consolidate the information provided .The question that may arise upon proposing using cmaps is the reasons for not simply using paper and pencil concept maps with the same purpose in mind. To answer this question, I need to count various benefits that using computer cmaps may offer. In fact computer cmap is so versatile though the full advantage of it or probably the potential disadvantages are indispensible.

First and foremost, by using computer software, one can save the Cmap constructed and make the necessary changes or add to it if needed. Secondly, by using computer cmaps students will have the chance to mess around by changing the keywords, the relationships, font, size, colour without worrying about rubbing out or tearing the paper and collecting a pile of undesired cmaps. “When computer software is used, one can go back, change the size and font style, and add colours to ‘dress up’ the concept map” (Novak & Canas, online report, 2008). In the third place, they also allow “moving of concepts together with linking statements and the moving of groups of concepts and links to restructure the map” (ibid). Fourthly, students will have the opportunity to add illustrations/images which in my case will be saved in a separate file on the computers. This can be supported by Novak’s claim that the brain has a significant capacity for acquiring and retaining visual images and integrating images into a conceptual framework via using Cmaps would promote retention of images and in my opinion the associated words/ideas. In cases where schools have access to Internet connection with high speed, students would be able to choose their images from the Internet provided that the time allocated to the English class allows for this. Last but not least, using computer for learning purposes is motivating by nature, especially, if learners are allowed to have some fun such as playing with the font, colour...while focusing on a tool for learning. Computer Cmaps also allow for collaboration between individuals in the same room or anywhere in the world and the maps can be built synchronously or asynchronously,   depending on the mapmakers’ schedules” (Strangman et al, 2009).

5 Lesson plan

 As noted earlier, I am planning to use concept map to help my  target students improve their reading comprehension of English texts.  My lesson plan for this particular group of students who are 14-15 years old girls studying English at their first grade of senior secondary school would include pre-reading, while- reading and post-reading activities. The number of hours allocated to each lesson in this year in Iranian schools is 3 hours a week. I will assign two sessions of 1.5 hours each to teaching the vocabulary and the reading and another 1.5 hour session to the grammar. I anticipate that working collaboratively in creating the map will take an average of 45 minutes for each text leaving me another 45 minutes for teaching the main vocabulary items, discussing the questions and checking the learners’ understanding of the text. For full description of the lesson plan see appendix A.

6 Evaluation

In this assignment, I began to explore the effectiveness of computer concept maps as a tool to promote reading comprehension skills. To this end, I planned to evaluate my original plan drawing upon the real implementation of the computer concept map compared to paper-based Cmap.

Since I was based in Leeds and had no access to my students, I asked a family friend’s daughter to play the role of my learner and be the subject of my case study for evaluating using computer concept map in improving reading comprehension. This family friend whom I call Mona from now on accepted to do so. Mona was 14 years old and would start her first year of senior secondary school in few months time according to Iranian school years. She was in the UK to spend her New Year holidays and then was going to go back to Iran. During the four-week evaluation process, Mona read four different English texts chosen from the grade one English textbook and tried to create concept maps for each, two paper-based concept map and two computer- based. In the following section I will elaborate on the whole process starting from the introduction session to the actual comparison of the two modes in terms of their effectiveness on understanding the texts and therefore retention of information provided in those texts after a week as compared to the same day retention and two days after.

6.1 Stage one: Introduction session

The actual evaluation stage was preceded by an introduction session in which I taught my learner how to use the VUE concept mapping software in order to ascertain her degree of familiarity with and understanding of concept maps. Since the learner was already familiar with computer and had the basic skills, she had no particular or major problem regarding to the keyboarding, typing,... and this provided me with the opportunity to focus on  using the software itself. Quiet soon she mastered the basic skills needed for creating a map through hands-on practice and working on lesson one of the book she was supposed to read for the purpose of this assignment. This session took about 40 minutes and Mona expressed her satisfaction with this short training and showed her capability to start the evaluation the day after. The plan for her was to create computer concept map for two lessons and paper-based concept map for two other lessons which was followed by evaluating her comprehension right after the session, 2 days later and a week after the session.

 By comparing and contrasting these two modes I wanted to find out which one was the most effective in helping my learner in retention of the information presented in the text and its consolidation. I introduced these two forms of concept mapping as reading strategies that aim at enhancing learners’ comprehension of the texts. It is worth mentioning that Mona was already familiar with paper-based concept mapping and had used it for other purposes rather than learning school subjects.

The target book has eight reading passages ranging from 175-189 words and approximately the same difficulty level as they are prepared by experts in the field for educational purposes and included in school English book. Four of these short texts were covered in this evaluation process in one month. 

6.2 Stage Two: Paper-based Cmap versus computer Cmap

Mona read each pre- selected lesson and created the map for it as has been determined in advance that was two lessons with paper-based Cmap and the other two with computer Cmap. I took notes of the amount of time she spent on each lesson and its related mapping and each lesson was followed by six questions asking about the information presented in the text. The same questions were asked two days later and then a week after creation of the concept map. Mona’s comments on the process were noted down as she was doing the map or after finishing the four lessons.

As table 1 indicates it took 55 and 45 minutes for Mona to do lesson one and two of the paper-based concept mapping as compared to 65 and 75 minutes for lessons one and two of the computer-based Cmap. This implies that computer concept mapping was more time consuming for her as according to her comments “I sometimes forget where to look for the icons that create nods or links, more importantly, when I want to create a new nod I don’t know where to add it, to the older nod or the newer one...”Mona’s comment made me think of the inadequacy of the instruction session in spite of her satisfaction with our short introductory session as when she embarked on doing the task the problems began to appear and every now and then she had to ask about how to do things while creating her computer Cmap.

Table 1 Learner’s comprehension of the two texts after paper-based concept mapping on three different occasions

Table 2 Learner’s comprehension of two texts after computer concept mapping on three different occasions

*The two texts used in paper-based concept map and computer concept map were different however of nearly the same length ranging from 175-189 words and the same difficulty level

6.3 Comprehension right after creating the map, after two days, after a week

In paper-based Cmapping, Mona answered 5 out of 6 questions correctly in both lessons which was higher than 4 out of 6 and 3 out 6 in computer based lessons leaving us to favour paper concept mapping so far.

Two days after the creation of maps Mona was able to answer 4 out of 6 questions correctly in P Cmap as compared to 4 and then 2 out 6 questions in the C Cmap thus leading to the second positive point in favour of paper- based Cmappping.

 Checking the retention of the information after a week showed that paper concept mapping was still in the lead as 4 out of 6 were correct as compared to 4 and then 3 out of 6 in computer mapping.

7 Conclusion

Along the way in finding out a solution to the major problem of my students in the first year of senior secondary school that is reading comprehension I came to the conclusion that computer concept mapping could be one solution. This was based on the fact that I wanted my students to benefit from a solution that is not only based on a sound learning theory but encourages collaboration, accounts for all learning styles and encourages more top down approaches to reading. My rationale for emphasizing these characteristics of my possible solution was based my teaching experience in the past and the inefficiency of more bottom up approaches to reading which were used in teacher- centred classrooms overlooking the active role of learners in the process of learning and not taking into consideration various learning styles that each learner brings with them to the classroom.

Evaluation of the effect of computer concept map as compared to paper based concept map carried out with one learner indicated the effectiveness of it in consolidating the information learned in the reading text in addition to raising student’s interest in the lesson and motivating her to continue with the process, especially if it is done in group as was part of the initial plan.

Therefore, as part of my future plan in my target classes and depending on my students’ access to computers at school I would integrate both ways of concept mapping as they proved to be efficient in helping my learner’s recall of the information. Group work and collaboration would be definitely part of the process for the purpose of providing scaffolding and learning from more knowledgeable learners.